I never said a wit about OK/not OK. That's your judgement.
I simply find the very premise, as you lay it out, to be formed of the
same destructive impulse to control.
I might say planetary scale destruction is inevitable, as that appears a
logical albeit pointless conclusion, but I certainly don't claim to know
so. Nor do I have reason to be concerned in the way you appear to be.
Righteous indignation may feel good, but it's not a prerequisite for
action. It only acts to spins the wheel.
KG
On 10/10/2012 7:35 PM, Edgar Owen wrote:
Merle,
Yes, KG seems obsessively attached to this discussion and why
destroying the planet is OK...
:-)
Edgar
On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Merle Lester wrote:
hey hey lads...settle down..calm please!...KG your loosing the
pulse..merle
Yes, yes. That you hold a great many things to be of high importance
is obvious to all but you. Thus you assume others are are talking
about such things, and assume they are ignorant of same, when they
are only talking about your ignorant attachments to these forms of
divisive thinking.
KG
On 10/10/2012 11:27 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
KG,
I find it appalling you support the destruction of the planet by
humans and attack those who argue against it...
The lowest of the low...
Edgar
On Oct 10, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote:
Definitive dependency - in other words you frame this in a
self-supporting way. The way a child argues when trying to sound
all grown up. You might as well just say:
"You are a stupid baby! Stop being such a stupid baby!" *L*
No one is denying 'reality' but you Edgar. You are perverting
others words to fit your preconceptions. You frame things as being
out of control/needing to be controlled - which is the very
divisive attitude that causes all the shit you find so wrong in the
world.
Opposition distracts.
KG
On 10/10/2012 6:47 AM, Edgar Owen wrote:
Bill,
By your perverted logic it is totally OK for man to be destroying
the planet because that's just a natural process.
Grow up and get real. Zen is not clever sophisms, it's reality...
Edgar
On Oct 10, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Bill! wrote:
Edgar,
What's REALLY important is that it's been framed wrong. It's been
framed as humans vs. nature, or as you put it humans
'interfering' in nature. As long as humans think they are not
part of nature and taht all their action are natural there will
be this problem.
When a beaver builds a dam is that interfering with nature? When
a squirrel shits in the woods is that interfering with nature?
When a human splits an atom is that interfering with nature? When
a human manipulates DNA is that interfering with nature?
What is the quality that humans have that other animals don't
have that renders them capable of interference - IYO? (I just
made that up, IYO = 'in your opinion')
...Bill!
--- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
<mailto:edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> Come on Bill.
>
> In human discourse about Man's impact on nature, that's the way
it's defined, and the whole issue is framed, as you well know...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 8:45 PM, Bill! wrote:
>
> > Edgar,
> >
> > This was a VERY SERIOUS response.
> >
> > Why is it that you think the things that humans do are
'unnatural' or against nature but the things that other life does
is 'natural' and okay? A friend of mine very wisely (IMO)once
suggested that all ethics should be applied to humans and other
life forms equally.
> >
> > What is the quality that you believe separates humans from
the rest of nature so that human activities and artifacts can be
labeled as 'interference'?
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe,
> > >
> > > Come on, it's a serious issue...
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Joe wrote:
> > >
> > > > Edgar,
> > > >
> > > > And Humans are just the tip of the iceberg, too.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why plants and animals insist on interfering
with the way Nature works.
> > > >
> > > > For example, on the early earth there was a nice
atmosphere without oxygen. But blasted Cyanobacteria evolved
which like to sip the methane and other gases there were back
then, and started polluting the atmosphere with ...Oxygen!
> > > >
> > > > Then -- wouldn't you know -- other organisms formed which
turned CO2 into even MORE Oxygen, with a help from light from the
Sun. The nerve! They got away with it, though, because there were
no Police. The rug was pulled out from under Nature yet again!
> > > >
> > > > Later, some animals evolved, which USE the oxygen.
> > > >
> > > > Much later, some of these animals of the Mammal variety
called "Beavers" began to INSIST that they interfere with the
stately FLOW of river tributaries and streams, by ...damming them
up! Such nerve. You may be sure that this caused inundations
upstream, and occasional floods downstream when the dams burst.
Havoc. Bye, bye, Nature!
> > > >
> > > > The nerve of these organisms: Micro-organisms, Plants,
and Animals. Always interfering with the way Nature works!
> > > >
> > > > At least on the Moon there is no such interference,
there's just a continual, thin, rain of meteorites pummeling the
surface, and no atmosphere to make things rust.
> > > >
> > > > Oops!, some exotic Mammals left some footprints on the
Moon, and some machinery, during the last fifty years. WHY must
there always be such interference? The Moon had been Nature's
nice, quiet, haven for rock and dust for so long. Why must things
always go downhill?
> > > >
> > > > --Joe
> > > >
> > > > > On 10/7/2012 9:26 PM, Edgar Owen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Why do humans always insist on interfering with the
way nature works?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
